특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part on violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act), the Defendant does not constitute “motor vehicle owner” under the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, which is merely an obligation to subscribe to mandatory insurance by temporarily using the instant motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, the lower judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court (a 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of 300,00 won) that is unfair (the Defendant and the Prosecutor) is too minor or minor (the Prosecutor).
2. Determination
A. Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides that the subject of a violation of Article 46(2)2 of the said Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the owner of a motor vehicle, who is the owner of the motor vehicle, or who is entitled to use the motor vehicle for himself/herself.
Here, “the person who operates an automobile for his own sake” refers to a person who is in the position of the responsible body to control the operation of an automobile and enjoy the benefit therefrom. Thus, even if the owner of an automobile gratuitously lends the automobile to a person with a close personal relationship, such as his/her relative, barring any special circumstance, the operation control or operation benefit for the automobile still exists in the owner of the automobile, and the mere fact that he/she used the automobile, cannot be viewed as “the person who operates the automobile for his/her own sake” under the above law (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918 delivered on May 10, 191, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the instant vehicle was purchased in the middle of a de facto marital relationship with the criminal defendant, and is in the custody of the transfer registration by purchasing it as a high